On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:10:53 -0400
"Alexander Sack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:49:19 -0400
> > "Alexander Sack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Is this a bug or not in FreeBSD's rtld?
> >>
> >> -aps
> >
> > It is not. In case it was not clear before, I maintain that you
> > _ask_ rtld for wrong behaviour and you get back what you asked for,
> > down to the letter. 'Tasting' libraries just because someone
> > somewhere want to screw up their configuration does not seem right
> > to me at all.
> I maintain that rtld should not load 32-bit libraries for a 64-bit
> binary. That is WRONG anyway you look at it.  And again, if it checked
> the arch type and skipped libutil.so.5 in /usr/lib32 it would fall
> back to checking /lib and things would work.  Moreover, if /usr/lib
> had major number links just like /usr/lib32 has, this would again have
> worked without issue.
> I believe this will be fixed on the other side of the fence (not
> setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to include /usr/lib32 to begin wtih) but
> still, my point still stands.
> -aps

It doesn't. Stop feeding 32 bit libraries and it won't try to load them.
It is as simple as that. For complex scenarious we do provide LD_32_
family of environment variables and if you refuse using them and insist
on sticking with clearly broken configuration, it your problem, not

Alexander Kabaev

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to